Miller, Chris wrote:
>
[ WE's vulnerbility to BMs ]
> Now, I see something similar. BM's are supposed to largely
> represent fire suppression -
[snip]
> Maybe it also covers smoke and blast effects
> screwing up your targeting ability for vehicles - great, I like the way
> it works for them.
Wouldn't the above justification for BMs affecting
vehicles also cover their ability to affect WEs?
> But what on earth is
> happening to a titan when blast markers start interfering with it? Are
> the gun crews retreating deeper into the titan? What the hell is it
> supposed to represent _then_? Is the titan ducking behind cover, thus
> blocking some weapon barerels? If these are the case, FP batteries
> should be blocked also.
Well... FP-based weapons spew out a higher volume of
fire than the others (frex, Mega Bolter vs Volcano Cannon), so
if BMs represent increased inaccuracy (for whatever reason),
it ALMOST makes sense that it would take more BMs to shut down
those sorts of weapons
> I guess my problem is that I see what BM's are
> supposed to be and why they affect other units the way they do, but
> those same thoughts do not apply to titans and super heavies and
> certainly shouldn't depend on what kind of energy comes out of the
> barrel of the gun.
>
> OK, now that I've gone off on BM's, let's be posititve: What do
> I suggest as an alternative?
>
> This:
> BM's should affect a Superheavy weapon's chance to hit if it has one: -1
> per BM.
Gah! You make a case on why WEs should not be affect
by BMs, and as a solution you propose to reduce BMs'
effectiveness against all super heavy weapons?!? Yeah, those
LRs weren't underpriced enough as it was...
It's an interesting idea, otherwise.
> The only hole here is disrupt weapons. Not sure what to do with
> these - could just keep the same "1 BM shuts them down" policy as we
> have now, but that seems a little unfair. Adding an effective to hit
> roll of 1+ could solve it (i.e. normally they hit on a 1+ so it's not
> even rolled unless they have a BM on them when firing) but I'm open to
> other suggestions.
??? Disrupts 'hit' on a 4+. Why couldn't you reduce
their accuracy by per BM like you proposed for the other SHWs?
> Again, I like Blast Markers and what they do, on everything
> except SHW's. I didn't like the initial ruling, and I didn't like the
> alternative (which the uninformed often play, I find locally) where BM's
> do _nothing_ to SHW's,
Wow. Lemme guess - lots of Land Raiders and arty on the
board?
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"I felt like I was becoming scientifically interesting." - Heart of
Darkness
Received on Thu Feb 05 1998 - 18:53:35 UTC